Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts received by the editorial office are checked by the executive editor regarding the purpose, subject, and policy of the journal. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's subject matter and editorial policies or journal editorial standards are rejected for review. The sections "Editorial", "Foreword", materials from round tables, translator's laboratories, essays, interviews are not subject to review

Manuscripts of articles that do not meet the journal's requirements for structure and design are returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. If the author has not sent a response to the editor's request within 30 calendar days, it is considered that the manuscript is not under review by the journal editorial office.

Manuscripts of articles in which, after checking for plagiarism in the StrikePlagiarism system, a significant percentage of textual borrowings are found, are returned to the authors for revision. If signs of plagiarism are detected, the article will be returned to the author without the right to resubmit this article.

After desk-review, the author's manuscript is submitted for peer-review (expert evaluation, external).

Within two month the Editor in chief assistants inform the author of the paper acceptance for consideration. Editor in chief personally sends the article to reviewers and gets them to text reviews.

Peer-review (external reviewers)

  1. Members of the editorial board recommend as reviewers persons who are experts in the scientific field of a specific article and have publications on the topic of the article. Members of the editorial board can also be reviewers.
  2. Reviewers must adhere to international best peer review practices, including the Guidelines for Reviewers from the European Association of Science Editors, the Web of Science Academy, and the requirements of this publication.
  3. Reviewers are required to notify the editor and/or editors of all possible conflicts of interest as soon as possible. They must also adhere to the principle of confidentiality when working with the manuscript of the article, in particular not to use and/or reproduce it in whole or in part anywhere, and not to disclose information about the editorial request for review.
  4. In our journal practiced double-blind review: reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers. There are at least ten or more reviewers for the total number of articles in each issue.
  5. Duration of review – up six months
  6. The reviewer notes:
    • Does the title of the article correspond to its content and purpose?
    • Does the article contain material of sufficient quality to be published in our journal:
  • article originality and scientific novelty;
  • whether the author takes into account the most current publications in the field of philosophic knowledge, presented in the article;
  • Are the conclusions drawn by the authors sufficiently substantiated and are the prospects for further research;
  • Is the use of terminology and methodological apparatus correct;
  • correctness of citing and cases of double translation.
    • Is there a need for an extraordinary publication of the article in order to secure priority.
    • Is the language of the article scientific, grammatically correct.
    • Does it need to be shortened or clarified.

6.6 Does the article contain plagiarism.

6.7 General remarks

6.8 Reviewers' decisions can be as follows:

- to accept;

- accept after minor revisions (authors have 5 days to make minor changes in accordance with reviewers' comments);

- accept after substantial revisions (authors have two weeks to substantially revise the manuscript);

- reject with a proposal for resubmission (the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors will be asked to resubmit the article after substantial revision of the content, if, according to the reviewers, the article requires additional experiments, other empirical studies to confirm the conclusions);

reject (the article is rejected without the right to resubmit the same article if it has serious flaws and/or does not contain original scientific results).

  1. If the article can be accepted subject to revision, it is returned to the author(s) along with the reviewers' comments and suggestions for improving the article and the editors' recommendations, if any.

The author resubmits a revised version of the article along with clear responses to the reviewers' comments. The author must highlight all changes in the text of the article.

  1. Editor in chief makes a list of reviewers’ remarks and sends it to the author.
  2. Editor in chief has the right to add the own comments to the expert remarks.
  3. The revised paper shall be submitted for consideration of the previous experts.
  4. Editor in Chief never disclose the names of reviewers.
  5. If all reviewers' conclusions are positive/negative, it is usually the main reason for making the article for publication / rejection. But the Editorial board, in some cases, have the right to disagree with the decision of the reviewers, if will be good reason for this.
  6. If the evaluation of the reviewers on some articles diverging, the Editorial board takes a special decision: accepted / reject those articles or assign new reviewers.
  7. If an article is rejected, the Editor in chief assistants inform the author via e-mail of the reasons for the refusal.
  8. Rejected articles may not be considered again. The Editorial board not discussing with authors about the reasons of articles’ rejection.

Authors’s appeal

Authors can appeal the rejection of publication. The procedure for such an appeal is described in the “Complaints and Appeals”